Home->Kincardine
->2004->May
->May 7

by Fred Kirby      May 7, 2004

The need for transparency needs revisiting. There is no legitimate reason why the mayor and deputy mayor, who should lead Council in all aspects and set the tone, fail the basic test of openness. Transparency is essential to democracy under the rule of law. It is understandable citizens become cynical of the political process when elected representatives treat the same citizens with distain.  

Since transparency makes life far easier for elected officials, civil servants, and citizens, I am at a loss why the Kincardine Council refuses to adopt it fully in all aspects. There are few restrictions on transparency – personnel business is one. In camera meetings should not be used as a convenient place to hide. Since Council does not communicate its objections to openness, I assume it is that officials are uncomfortable having public business public or they have something embarrassing or wrong to hide.  

I do not know whether it is embarrassment or wrongness for not making public the basic documents of the BMTS. Council does not understand that both the citizens of Kincardine and all people who may benefit from any profits have a right to know how and why the board is constituted as such and Council’s reasons for setting its remuneration and expenses.  It was always my belief that when you keep your closet door open, no one wonders about the possible skeletons hiding there. 

Then there is the Sam Heisz occurrence where an inquiry results in a letter from a lawyer with reference to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Such action suggests a siege mentality; enforced by the fact that it appears one has to approach the Municipality with the appropriate legislation in hand before given consideration. An explanation after the fact does not cut it – the mentality already shows.  As for the Freedom of Information Act, it is a faulty instrument at best and needs rewriting to give better access to citizens. The Freedom of Information section of the Act was enacted to protect us from scoundrels. Surely it should not be needed in Kincardine.  

The mayor should have it written large on his office wall that if Walkerton had had a few irritants such as Sam, the water tragedy may not have happened. Then again, their mayor may have refused to talk to such irritants with the results as we now know. Patience and openness lead to understanding and understanding leads to solutions. 

Lastly today is the question of a possible conflict of interest over the purchase of lots along the water pipeline that first came to light last year. Mr. Pryde made the recommendation to the Municipality to run the new water pipe line along the lake rather than along the B-Line and when his wife purchased property along the route a possible conflict of interest automatically arose. It may be a perfectly ethical transaction but how are citizens to know when Council does not challenge the purchase. It is not for anyone involved in the transactions, from the accepting of the route to the purchase of the property, to determine whether or not there was a conflict. It is up to an outside authority to make that determination. That, Mr. Mayor, is the proper use of the legal process